BLUE FOX Vs. MISS CHITRALEKHA THAMBUCHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein are the plaintiffs in O.S. No.1848/2000 on the file of XI Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City which was filed for recovery of actual vacant possession of the schedule properties from the judgment debtors and also for mesne profits, which came to be decreed. The decree holders filed an execution proceeding No. 142/2014. The petitioners herein, along with other objectors filed objections to the said execution petition. All the objections of these petitioners have been rejected, against which they preferred regular first appeals, which also came to be rejected by this Court on 27.04.2017. Against the said order, Special Leave Petition Nos.15163 and 15164 of 2007 in RFA Nos.1008 and 1056 of 2016, were respectively preferred by the petitioners in R.P. Nos.237 and 238/2017 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court on hearing the respective learned counsels, ordered as under:

(2.) The submission of the learned Senior Counsel Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, appearing on behalf of Sri S.Vishwajith Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioners in R.P. Nos.237 and 238 of 2017 is that the Landlord entered into an agreement of lease-deed regarding suit schedule properties with the Lessee on 03.07.1969 and as per Sub Clauses (e) and (f) of Clause 7 of the said agreement, it was permissible to the Lessee to sub-lease the suit schedule properties to Sub-Lessees. Clause 7(f) further clarifies that the Head-Lessee does not lease any portion of the premises for a period beyond the duration of the existing lease, namely 32 years that is from 14.03.1968 and in the event of their holding any deposits from the tenants to make over such deposits to the Lessor if the persons paying the deposits are until in occupation of the leased premises. As per the said clauses of the agreement, the original Lessee can sublet the premises to the present petitioners. Hence, the petitioners are lawfully engaged for all the purposes beyond the lease. When it is the legal position the Landlord has to implead these petitioners as parties. In support of his contention, he referred the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, under which, the Sub-Lessees also are the tenants for the purpose of filing a suit for recovery. Learned Senior Counsel also relied on AIR 1964 SUPREME COURT 1889 in the case of Rupchand Gupta v. Raghuvanshi(Private) Ltd. and another (@ page-SC1892) and submitted that as per the said order the petitioners herein, who are objectors, were to be heard before passing the order and without hearing the objectors passing of an order is contrary to law and in violation of principles of natural justice. Though, clause 7(e) and (f) of the agreement was brought to the notice of the Court, the regular first appeals were rejected. Hence, he submits that review petitions are maintainable with regard to impleading the objectors as necessary parties under Order XLVII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, learned Senior Counsel submits to recall the order and allow the regular first appeals filed before this Court.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that, as per Section 22 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, sub-tenant is also a tenant and to be provided an opportunity of hearing. Hence, he submitted that for the purpose of recovery of possession the petitioners being sub-tenants to be made parties. Here in the instant case the Head-Lessee who had sub- let the suit properties to the petitioners-objectors, hence, these are the persons who are necessary to come on record. Therefore, the suit itself was liable to be rejected, since the objectors were not made parties to the proceedings. It is his further submission that the sub-tenants are tenants under the provisions of Karnataka Rent Control Act and they are tenants for the landlord.